In its first human practices draft-for-comment report, The BioFab: International Open Facility Advancing Biotechnology (BIOFAB) asked the core question of “what is a part?” in biology. The report explores the complexity, boundaries and evolution of biological engineering, and seeks to determine what standardization might mean for the industry.

One of BioFab’s projects—and they all seem quite ambitious—aims to build thousands of biological parts needed to control genetic expression in a select number of organisms. This collection—known as “C. dog.”—will make it possible to manipulate DNA/RNA/Protein synthesis in E. coli (a bacterium) and S. cerevisiae (a budding yeast). The product, to be used to aid researchers, will be released under the terms of a legal framework that enables the free exchange and use of standard biological parts.

Founded at the end of 2009 by bioengineering assistant professor Drew Endy and UC Berkeley’s Adam Arkin, The professionally staffed public-benefit facility represents “the first significant focused investment in the development of open technology platforms underlying and supporting the next generation of biotechnology” (BioFab.org). And with generous funding from the NSF and other prominent organizations, the operation will eventually be able to shell out tens of thousands of standard biological parts each year. While such a program reeks of ethical concerns, head of BioFab’s human practices Gaymon Bennett promises that ethical issues, including safety and security, will be addressed by creating resources that will help researchers make tough decisions. The effort will also create a new legal framework in support of its burgeoning technologies.

BioFab Directors Drew Endy (left) and Adam Arkin

Synthesizing biological parts from genes may have far-reaching ethical implications, but we can’t say it’s altogether a new idea. Designer babies have long been a part of public debate, and recent advancements like MIT’s registry of standard biological parts have paved the way for initiatives like BioFab. But there’s a big difference between making biological parts and figuring out how those parts will work together.

Creating functioning interchangeable biological parts is at the heart of BioFab’s mission. Taking modern synthetic biology’s mantra that a system is an integrated set of components one step further, BioFab will attempt to define, in context, what a component is, building on the assumption that standardized ‘parts’ don’t yet exist, and that such parts are made, not discovered.

It was clear from early on in biology’s synthetic saga that DNA’s unpredictable methods of assembly would make standardization a challenge, but several years into the new millennium a proposal was made as to how restriction enzymes could isolate DNA “BioBricks” that could effectively “mix and match” with one another using complimentary strands of overhanging base pairs. While this provided a solution to putting engineered DNA components together, it couldn’t solve how to get them to work together in predictable ways. It turns out that sans context, standardized biological parts are little more than words of an indecipherable language.

Quantifying and categorizing genetic structures—both upon which genome sequencing is based—are not in themselves new goals. The present conundrum lies not in the ability to break things down into workable units, but rather in how to reverse the process and create anew using those units. Such is the driving force behind bioengineering, and now BioFab.

[Image credit: BIOFAB, Margot Hartford]
[Source: BIOFAB, Stanford School of Medicine]

Synthetic biology has been called the science of the 21st century. Rewriting the genetic information of micro organisms can allow scientists to create new genetic machines that can perform extraordinary tasks. You remember MIT’s Registry of Standard Biological Parts we discussed? iGEM teams are given access to that database in order to come up with useful, interesting, or just plain cool genetic machines for the competition. MIT is allowing these undergraduates access to some of the most advanced synthetic biology tools of today in the hopes of developing students into the best genetic engineers of tomorrow. That’s exciting stuff.

For those completely new to the iGEM competition, undergraduate teams are formed in universities all over the world. They receive standard biological parts in the beginning of the summer and present their results during the jamboree in the fall. Not every institution can sponsor an iGEM team. They require funding, access to advanced equipment, and most importantly: synthetic biology expertise. Each team has faculty advisors that help students understand biotechnology, and guide them in its use to accomplish the task they desire.

While an iGEM team’s requirements are severe, the number of institutions sponsoring them has increased dramatically. The first iGEM competition in 2004 had just 5 teams attending. Last year saw 84 teams. This year there will be more than 110. The interest and capabilities of synthetic biology undergraduate programs all over the world are increasing at a wonderful rate.

iGEM 2008 had 84 teams. This year will have 110+. Like the bacteria they engineer, iGEM teams are growing at a phenomenal rate.

It really is wonderful news to see so many groups interested in iGEM. These undergraduates aren’t just creating neat science projects that will help them get genetic engineering jobs in the future, they are making differences now. Last year’s grand prize winner, Slovenia, engineered a vaccine to Heliobacter pylori, a bacteria that infects up to half the world’s population, causing gastritis and ulcers. H. pylori is often drug resistant, meaning that Slovenia’s vaccine is a new and needed solution to infection.

While it is the premier undergraduate competition of its kind, iGEM could be more. Our old pal Mac Cowell from DIYbio was trying to get a do-it-yourself team into iGEM 2009 but was (kindly) told that iGEM wasn’t ready for DIY biology groups yet, mainly due to issues surrounding safety and funding. We still might see a DIYgem team in 2010.

For now, I’m just anxious to see what amazing biological machines will be debuted on Halloween this year. Stay tuned to Singularity Hub for coverage of the competition and discussion of the results as they are announced. Trust me, folks, cool things are coming out of synthetic biology, and iGEM never fails to impress.

Can a baby unlock the gene for strength?

The first super baby was born in Germany in 2004. Though his name was never released, pictures demonstrated that his young physique contained almost twice as much muscle as other infants. Look ahead to fall 2005 in Michigan, Mr. and Mrs. Hoekstra adopt a young boy named Liam. Soon he is growing muscle at an astounding rate. Hanging on rings in an iron cross position by 5 months, pull-ups by 9 months, Liam is the second super baby. His condition, now known as myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy, makes him hungry, lean, and strong. Check out his pic after the break.

With Liam, scientists had further proof that a genetic mutation could exist that causes a human to naturally build muscle. Without even trying, Liam has little to no body fat, can lift seven pound weights arms extended (he only weighs 30 lbs himself) and has a six-pack. Now nearly four, Liam is taking gymnastic lessons, but this is more of an outlet for his energy than an explanation for his physique. No doubts, it’s the lack of myostatin that’s helping him get ripped.

The Protein to End All Proteins

Blocking myostatin has been shown to have drastic effects in animals besides humans. Myostatin tests in labs have pumped up mice to Schwarzenegger proportions.

A whippet named Wendy has a bizarre condition that has slowed her myostatin production. A strain of cattle known as Belgian Blue are predisposed to genetic conditions that lower production of the protein…and wow, you can really tell. Looking at photos of each of these animals, I’m struck by the near absurdity of their pumpitude. It’s like someone delivered free weights to the zoo.

Which isn’t to say that the applications for myostatin blocking would be absurd. Doctors, like Louis Kunkel of the Children’s hospital in Boston, have long been searching for cures for muscular dystrophy (MD). It’s the most common genetic disease and few sufferers live into adulthood. A myostatin blocker could help these children survive and perhaps even live normal lives. All it might take is relatively small changes in the level of the protein: 20-50%.

Yet, when you type ‘myostatin’ into Google you don’t get web forums dedicated to curing muscular dystrophy. Since breakthrough research in 1997 by Alexandra McPherron, Se-Jin Lee, and Ravi Kambadur proved the effects of myostatin, the discussion has focused on one topic: blocking myostatin in order to get ripped. Buff. Cut. However you grunt it, the draw to have a treatment that creates muscle – with little exercise needed – is outweighing the medical pursuits of MD cures. Now that a human gene has been linked to myostatin-blocking I can only predict that such demand will increase dramatically. Expectedly, we can already buy “myostatin-blockers” as a workout supplement. Obviously I can’t comment on the veracity of the claims made by these products, but you may want to think about them in the same vein as other…er… ‘enlargement’ offers you receive online.

Women and Super Children First

Liam’s mother has been hesitant to allow press into her young son’s life. Rightfully she fears that the coverage would turn Liam’s existence into a circus. Even further ensconced in anonymity, the German super baby isn’t giving any interviews. However well they are shrouded from the public, however, they’ve been genetically sampled and will undoubtedly continued to be so as they mature. Using this information, it isn’t a matter of if the myostatin gene could be modified in others, it’s a matter of when.

So the demand is there, and the possibility is coming. What will it mean to have an available genetic treatment which will permanently make you able to build muscle with little effort? First, I hope it means sufferers form MD, AIDS, and other debilitating diseases will find relief from muscle atrophy. Secondly, maybe not trivially, it will mean a new series of anti-doping tests at sporting competitions. But most importantly it will be a sign that humans will be on their way to modifying their bodies to fit their lives and not the other way around.

From the 1997 study on myostatin blocking in mice. The hypertrophy is clear in two subjects.

Just recently Singularity Hub has discussed growing organs, stem cell treatments, and a wide host of bionic body augmentations (even some not so bionic additions). Genetic manipulation, however, is the real holy grail of the body-crafting endeavor. Much of this pursuit has focused on understanding the purpose of each sequence of the genome. But with myostatin, some of that completeness may be deemed unnecessary. Most people won’t be interested in discovering what a million different genes do when changing just one gives them the ideal athletes body.

That’s a recipe for disaster. We hope that Liam Hoekstra has a happy healthy life. But knowing the effects of other kinds of unchecked growth can include tough health problems, we should expect a price to come with his amazing gifts (remember Andre the Giant). We do not fully know the effects of myostatin on smooth and cardiac muscle. Organ development may benefit or be stunted. As researchers are quick to point out, ligament and tendon strength do not necessarily coincide with muscle strength. Liam already has to work a little harder on getting the flexibility common to children his age.

Myostatin genes have to be understood in the larger context before they can become part of a general genetic engineering lexicon. Let’s hope the demand for work-free muscle building will be controlled enough to wait for it. Before we can build super men we’ll have to get them the old fashioned way: by letting super babies grow up on their own.

Good luck, Liam, and watch out for Lex Luthor.

Glowing Primates: Terrible at Flashlight Tag (credit Erika Sasaki - Hideyuki Okano / AP)

The marmosets were given the glowing gene in much the same way as Ruby Puppy but, instead of glowing red like the transgenic dog, the primates glow green.  The genetic mutation of these marmosets holds many of the same implications as a glowing dog, including the potential study of many human diseases as well as the ethical dilemmas that come with the territory.  The marmoset itself was targeted for study because it reaches sexual maturity faster and has more offspring, allowing experiments to take less time from breeding to data collection.

Aside from the usual perks of having a genetically engineered pet/lab experiment, the plethora of scientists credited with writing the report believe that this is the first time that the offspring of genetically engineered primates are able to inherit the new trait.  This was proven when three out of the four second-generation marmosets bred in the experiment were capable of glowing under ultraviolet light.  The presence of this gene in the sperm and egg cells of the marmoset could not only lower the cost of each animal, but also increase the yield.  Whereas only a few marmosets matured to adulthood from the 900 original embryos, tradition breeding could allow for a much better survival rate.

Giving animals a glowing gene is simply an easy way of testing if a genetic modification worked.  The next step would be to recreate human illnesses in the animals so different medications can be tested.  Of course, with any of these types of experimentations there are ethical issues.  Sure, it’s not too bad to make King Kong glow a little bit but the animal rights groups will get a bit ticked off when he is engineered to have Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease.

Eric Kleiman of In Defense of Animals is already outraged, saying that “this is a step backward, not a step forward.”  Other notable quotes include: “Why aren’t scientists harnessing the power of the human genome or any of the other technology that has exploded over the last 10 years?”   Although these alarmist exclamations prove Mr. Kleiman’s ignorance of what has in fact exploded in the last ten years and should not deter the progress of science, an important question is still raised: is it cruel to breed animals with specific diseases solely for the purpose of making human lives better?

There do not seem to be many grave concerns about cruelty towards the genetically modified lab rats that have been used for years.  But perhaps these cute, almost human-like monkeys evoke a greater amount of sympathy from animal lovers.  Ethical dilemmas aside, the number of genetically modified species are steadily growing and, in the not too distant future, humans will join those numbers with the hopes of eradicating diseases and genetic abnormalities.  Genetic engineering, like many other technological advances, will cause great ethical challenges that may be cause for rethinking the moral principles of humanity.  For now, we can just marvel at the glowing marmoset.  We’ll simply have to leave it to the scientists and lawmakers to figure out the rest.

I Can Glow Red At Night, How About You?

Although some species can naturally create light (such as fireflies and some planktons), in recent years scientists have been keen to develop the trait within animals that do not glow on their own accord.  Genetically engineered luminescence is generally regarded as the first step in gene alteration, allowing scientists a clear indication of whether or not their experiment succeeded.  Fluorescent animals have been bred in the laboratory before, but this is believed to be the first instance of a dog being given the gene.

The transgenic canine named Ruby Puppy was cloned using a technique called retrovirus-mediated gene transfer.  This allows scientists to introduce a foreign gene into the host animal’s DNA.  The gene that was introduced into Ruby Puppy’s DNA was for the creation of a fluorescent protein that, upon contact with ultraviolet light, emits a red glow.  A genetically modified virus was used to inject the new genetic code directly into a stem cell nucleus.  That nucleus was then inserted into a de-nucleated egg cell and placed in a surrogate mother.  Give it a little time and voila: an eating, sleeping, pooping, glowing (literally) puppy.

Ruby Puppy glows because the new protein is responsive to ultra-violet light, which excites the electrons within the protein bonds.  The electrons then relax into their initial state and release the energy as a red light.  Since each and every cell in Ruby Puppy is programmed to create this protein, there are millions of them all over the place, which creates a stunning red glow.  For the designer bio-luminescent buffs out there, red is not the only color from which to choose.  The first isolated glowing protein was a green color from the jellyfish Aequorea Victoria.  Since then, scientists have experimented with replacing different molecules within the protein structure, allowing for the creation of a number of different colored photo-luminescent proteins ranging through the visible spectrum including blue, yellow, cyan, orange and, of course, red.

Although fluorescence may seem like just a novelty, it has many useful properties.  Scientists are just figuring out how to tag all of an animal’s cells, as is the case with Ruby Puppy, but for years have been able to tag specific cells (tumors, bacteria, and other bad stuff) with these luminescent molecules.  Once perfected, luminescent cells may go beyond medicine and be used in any number of applications, from tracking animals in the wild to distinguishing between people.  Soon, there might not be a need for a sex offender registry.  If the creepy neighbor from down the street walks out in the sun and starts glowing an ethereal purple, maybe it’s time to find a new home?  That, of course, may be a violation of basic human rights, but what about a new form of body art?

Luminescent tattoos may soon become the new trend in the body art world.  New proteins could possibly be synthesized to glow from radio wave input so, wherever a favorite radio station is playing, the tattoo will light up.  Take that one step further (for all the nerds and geeks out there) and have a tattoo that is responsive to wireless internet signals.  Enough with those wi-fi finders on keychains, why not just look down at your “sick tat” and see if you can sign onto a wi-fi network?

Ruby Puppy was genetically engineered from stem cells and thus was luminescent from birth, but for these outlandish ideas to become reality, scientists would need to be able to alter genetic material after the organism has grown to maturity.  This capability, however, is not just over the horizon, but is happening now.  Earlier, Singularity Hub reported on using gene therapy to restore vision to blind patients as well as curing the bubble boy disease.  It is simply a matter of time before even more devastating and wide-spread genetic disorders go the way of the dodo.

It will be some time before gene therapy makes super-heroes or luminescent cells replace tattoos as the next form of body art, but the time of fluorescent technologies aiding in early diagnosis of dangerous diseases and cancers is already here.  Gene therapy is slowly breaking its way out from the laboratory and into the hospital, making doctors more able to cure genetic disorders.  Ruby Puppy is a proof-of-concept step towards the future of genetic engineering, as one could assume that the dog lies somewhere between lab rat and human, genetically speaking.  The next logical step is to repeat the experiment on primates and then on to humans.  As the science of gene therapy matures, there is no telling how many diseases may be cured or how many childhood super-hero fantasies may be brought to life.

If you’re like me, Jurassic Park taught you two valuable lessons: genetic engineering has to be dangerous, and the coolest scientists are chaos obsessed mathematicians. Fifteen years later, I’m throwing both of those lessons out the window with the help of the new biohacking web-hub DIYbio.org. In the first part of our story we talked about the DIY biology movement and what it might mean for the world. Now, let’s put on our Jeff Goldblum glasses, bust out our lab coats and get to talking with some of the coolest researchers I’ve met: the founders of DIYbio Jason Bobe and Mac Cowell, and long-time contributor Bryan Bishop.

The success of DIYbio.org was less engineered than the genetic work they discuss. The idea started as a simple way to get people together who might be interested in the subject. Soon the listserv was growing like bacteria on a petri dish. It was a case of being at the right place at the right time, with the right determination. In DIY biology we see the convergence of three major trends: a rising youth culture trying to make its positive mark on the world, the free exchange of information and expertise via the Internet, and a growing abundance of quality genetic engineering tools. Sitting at this nexus, DIYbio is a rising star already drawing attention from major news media, the scientific community, and the Internet populace at large.

The timing for DIYbio may be fortuitous, but it still takes a lot of dedication and hard work to bring a web-based community together. By carefully considering the long term needs and consequences of their group, the founders of DIYbio have helped shape its success.

Don’t call them mad scientists…they’re quite responsible

Despite this rapid success and the promise of much more, the founders of DIYbio.org are pretty grounded guys. They are focused on keeping the movement healthy and sustainable. Talking with Mac Cowell I was impressed by the thought and planning put into developing the community he is helping to build. This is not only a guy who talked his way into a job at MIT and the International Genetically Engineered Machine Competition (iGEM), he’s someone with a vision on how all of this DIY biology will need to be shaped as it moves forward. In our interview below, he’ll let you know a little bit more about himself and share part of that vision with you:

Jason Bobe is a man with a finger on the pulse of his community. He knows what is happening at DIYbio and the greater scientific world as well. Talking with Bobe, you get the feeling that he’s in this to help others and to expand humanity’s understanding of the natural world. That’s pretty fitting considering he is part of George Church’s Personal Genome Project. In our interview, I asked him to let us know more about some of the current and upcoming projects coming out of DIYbio:

Since April 2008, Bryan Bishop has been a presence at DIYbio.org. To say he’s a regular contributor is sort of like saying tweens are regular contributors to Jonas Brother concerts. Self-professed Internet-guy, Bryan has his hands in a lot of pies. He helped spread the interest in playing with sharpie microfluidics (take two pieces of glass, a marker, some water and watch the science happen!), and he keeps an eye on self-replicating fabrication whether it be mechanical or biological. Singularity Hub’s long chat with Bryan can be seen in its entirety here.

“Regulation is tough in this area. DIYbio is biology- everything human is biology. You’re biology, I’m biology- so if you start regulating biology, you start getting into some very murky waters, very quickly, into important areas like personal freedom.” – Bryan Bishop

In "sharpie microfluidics", a lab is drawn on two glass slides to provide surface tension restricted experiments in microfluidics.

The work of these three gentleman scientists is anything but chaotic. With careful planning and consideration they are helping shape the future of an emerging field. Their examples point out that DIY biology isn’t do-it-all-alone, or do-it-without-guidance; even if they do like to define their roles as facilitators, not leaders. DIYbio.org and the DIY biology community as a whole are surely better off for their work. And hopefully they’ll help keep us safe from the inevitable dinosaur rebellion.

Ever wanted to play with your own genome? When you read about the latest genetic engineering tools do your fingers itch with anticipation? Do you look around the library, the pub, or the community center searching for your fellow biohackers? Look no further, intrepid gene-explorer, the Do-It-Yourself Biology movement has found a home at DIYbio.org. From the humble beginnings in the minds of Jason Bobe and Mac Cowell, the DIYbio community has exploded into the wider Internet community and is picking up interest from PBS, Seed Magazine, The Boston Globe, and many others. Back in January, Singularity Hub gave you a taste of what some at-home biologists were cooking, but now we’re ready to serve the whole enchilada. In the second part of this story we’ll have interviews with the founders and regular DIYbio contributor Bryan Bishop. Now, let’s all take a moment and tie our shoes, because DIYbio is about to knock our socks off.

Just to be clear on the concept: genetic engineering takes microscopic specimens and uses standard techniques to splice in desirable genetic traits. The uses of these traits range from the interesting (like making things smell like bananas) to the crucial (developing new vaccines). The power of this technology is almost limitless. Natural biology produced fully fledged sentient life in four billion years, synthetic biology might give us designer babies in less than ten.

The future is self-replicating

And the scientific community at large isn’t shying away from working with the DIYbio community. Jason Bobe works on George Church’s personal genome project. The PGP is a sympathetic cousin to DIY, hoping to make the discoveries of the Human Genome Project available for use by everyone. Church’s group is working on making protein synthesis (a key lab process) available in a kit. What’s more, that kit could be designed to produce more kits.

Mac Cowell pointed out this comic from the Emerging Technology Conference to highlight the ease in which synthetic biology can be performed.

Self-replication is a big theme in the DIYbio community. Biology sort of has the universal property of making more of itself by default. Synthetic biology no less so. Imagine ordering a package off eBay that contained several different samples that, when grown, would provide all the necessary chemicals and specimens needed to perform experiments in your home. BioBricks™ — a physical assembly standard that contains selected DNA fragments– are already available to reputable scientists.  In the future, such technology could conceivably be made available to the world at large.  Heck, the entire lab could be available at some point as ‘seed’ samples that are grown rather than shipped as a finished product.

And this powerful tool is available to you. You! Sitting right there at your computer. What? You say you’ve never had a day of genetic engineering lessons? You don’t remember anything from high school biology? Well luckily for you, joining the DIYbio community is as simple as going to DIYbio.org and reading the forums. DIYbio can connect you with the literature that you need to help you get started. Supplies and equipment? There are discussion threads on how to find them. Want some help, why not join one of their local meet up groups and make some friends with other biohackers while you’re at it. Here’s a rather quirky video of a recent meeting in New York City. Camaraderie and DNA manipulation abound:

With great power comes great…

The DIYbio community is helping to open the world of synthetic biology to everyone. Everyone. And if you’re a little shocked and concerned by that concept, you’re not alone. The optimist will look at this glass of genetic soup and see it as half full of promises for cheaper fuel, better access to our own DNA, greater understanding of our world, and hope for improving our health. The pessimist points out that the same techniques that can make biofuel bacteria, test your DNA for diseases, and find new species can produce deadly pathogens, encourage genetic self-mutilation, and release invasive microscopic species. Should we be happy or terrified?

Typically, an institution such as a university, establishes a set of ethics and safety guidelines that help govern how its researchers should behave. Do-it-yourself changes all that. Most of the information is free-source, or published in widely read journals and letters. Equipment could be licensed, but somethings are so simple that household items can be used (did you watch the video? You’ll see what I mean). Even if these things could be controlled, the pragmatist knows that someone can always find a way around the controls. Whether we want to admit or not, the shared wealth of biological knowledge has reached a point where basic molecular biology can be done in private and without any supervision. It is unclear if synthetic biology will one day be similarly untethered.

The visionaries at DIYbio know that it might, and they are trying to plan accordingly. Bryan Bishop is quick to point out that we too easily follow the precautionary principle rather than the proactionary principle. To Bryan, “the proactionary principle is as follows: People’s freedom to innovate technologically is highly valuable, even critical, to humanity.” This doesn’t mean we don’t assess risks and take precautions, it means that we value innovation over fear, and use scientific observation to help us make decisions, not popular perception.

That being said, DIYbio hopes to foster a “this is my world too” sort of attitude that will inspire both innovation and regulation. Bobe and Cowell hope to borrow from successful examples in other communities such as high-powered rocketry. Using these communities as guides, they look to build a framework for safety and oversight. And the guys at the head are quick to point out that they hope to lead through example, not dictation. “It’s a meritocracy,” Cowell points out and competition is a way to get people to work together. Bobe and Cowell do have plans for drafting a common set of safety guidelines with input from inside and outside the community.

Even when scientists support the DIY community, they may not necessarily view it as on par with the more established scientific community. Scientists may value the DIY work without necessarily accepting it as “science.”  Their concerns shouldn’t be  just about safety or regulation. In the DIY community, how do you know if someone has really done what they claim to do? How can you repeat someone else’s experiments if the instructions were written out on a napkin?

Without the rigors and methodology of the global scientific community, the only answer I can see  is you have to rely on the community. Just as the established scientific institutions have peer reviewed journals that act as filters on scientific knowledge, so too may the DIYbio message boards be one day used to probe and praise the work of its members. High or low, the scientific process relies on a community of peers, and these guys know that.

Stay tuned for the second part of this story for interviews with Jason Bobe, Mac Cowell, and Bryan Bishop and for a discussion on the future of DIYbio.

COMING SOON: The interviews!

]]> http://singularityhub.com/2009/04/28/do-it-yourself-biohacking/feed/ 8 http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/02/amateurs-are-trying-genetic-engineering-at-home/ http://singularityhub.com/2009/01/02/amateurs-are-trying-genetic-engineering-at-home/#comments Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:03:58 +0000 Keith Kleiner http://singularityhub.com/?p=160 Marcus Wohlsen from the Associated Press came out with an article on December 26, 2008 describing the emergence of do it yourself genetic engineers (biohackers) working from their basements and garages.  Biohacker Meredith Patterson is highlighted in her efforts to develop genetically altered yogurt bacteria that will glow green to signal the presence of melamine, the chemical that turned Chinese-made baby formula and pet food deadly.  Biohackers like Patterson may or many not have professional or educational backgrounds in biology, yet with the availabilty of affordable tools and dna samples almost anyone can now give genetic engineering a try.

Wohlsen’s article has caused quite a sensation across the net.  Years from now the article very well may be seen as the catalyst that moved amateur genetic engineering from unknown hobby to full fledged global phenomenon.  A few quick searches on google shows that the internet is virtually devoid of websites that specifically cater to the genetic engineering hobbyist.  Wohlsen’s article will only accelerate the inevitable mushrooming of several such sites in the coming years.

The ethical repercussions and potential dangers associated with amateur genetic engineering are clearly a concern for all of us.  But the simple fact is that the rise of amateur genetic engineering, like any emerging technology, cannot be stopped.  Rather than oppose this movement and push it into the much more dangerous world of black market activity, we need to embrace the movement with sensible regulation and healthy, open debate.

Carolyn Y. Johnson at the Boston Globe published a more comprehensive story in September 2008 that is also good reading.